Blatter is bidding for a a FOURTH term, he has been there since 1998. Id he was a president of a coutnry he would have been labeeled a dictator for haning on for power so long. Sadly I think he has too much influence for anyone to challenge him.

Mohamed Bin Hammam has been confirmed as Sepp Blatter's only challenger in Fifa's presidential election on 1 June.

The 61-year-old Asian confederation chief announced in March that he would stand against Blatter, 75, as head of football's world governing body.

Blatter has been president of Fifa since 1998 and recently pledged that if re-elected for a fourth term, he would step down at its conclusion in 2015.

The president will be elected at a Fifa Congress, which starts on 31 May.

Fifa had set a deadline of 1 April for all candidates to be nominated and the winner will require a two-thirds majority of the valid votes cast in the first ballot, or a majority in the second.

Bin Hammam is Blatter's first challenger since African confederation president Issa Hayatou took him on - and lost by 139 votes to 56 - in 2002.

There are 208 Fifa voters for this contest and the Qatari, who played an influential role in securing the 2022 World Cup for his home nation, rates his chances of becoming the the ninth president of Fifa and the first from Asia as "50-50".

Among his many plans for Fifa are supporting the introduction of goal-line technology, introducing two more officials behind the goals, increasing the body's decision-making power and spreading its wealth.

Bin Hammam, who made his fortune in construction, became president of Qatar club Al Rayyan when he was 24 before taking on roles as the head of Qatar's volleyball and table tennis bodies.

He took command of the Qatar Football Association in 1992 and four years later was elected by the AFC to Fifa's executive.

American journalist Grant Wahl, who announced in February that he intended to stand for presidency as a "people's candidate", did not take his application further.

Is it a case that he dislikes England or that he has to be "fair and balanced"? Just asking really. Yesterday on FOX news somebody was slating the UN because it "hardly ever sides with the US". That channels only Liberal voice said it isn't supposed to side with the US it's supposed to be fair and balanced. Usually when it comes to matters of football we English are so very arrogant.

I hope my question here makes sense. Just wondering is all if he really is anti England or simply fair and balanced to the rest of the world which I assume is his job?

It occurred to us that if everyone stopped selling weapons and guns to African Nations they would be much better off. Seeing children shooting other children terrible. AND I know it was a film but I have seen children with rifles on the news too.